If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

It's not really a question of whether a newspaper is a primary or secondary source. Such a statement is misleading.

It is the stories that are either primary or secondary.
A newspaper provides both primary & secondary stories.

I agree in part with what you say, but it is the secondary stories, which I have a problem with because researchers continually cite many of these stories as primary sources, and clearly they are not when closely scrutinized.

I can see where historians suggest that all such stories which are documented are classed as primary sources on paper, but the reality is that it cannot be the same for secondary stories emenating from that original source, which differ from the original.

As an example, if a witness gives a first hand account to a newspaper in person and the paper prints that, it is a primary source. If that newspaper sells the same account to a second newspaper and that account when published differs from the original it becomes a secondary source, because that paper was not a direct party to the original account, and not present when it was given, and what is contained in that cannot be totally relied on.

Comment

He said to an Echo reporter this morning. "The murderer couldn't have come to a worse place (for escaping) than this court. There is only this narrow entrance, and If I had known he was there when I went to the water tap at three o'clock, I reckon he wouldn't have got off."

It's part of the same article quoted by Trevor & myself.
All he is saying is that he hadn't realised that man he saw had been the killer.

Not at all.

Quite the opposite, apparently.

He was expressing regret that he didn’t see anyone in the court at that time, and that if he had seen someone, he might have noticed bloodstains on his person and been in a position to thwart his escape.

Here at least is a direct quote from Bowyer. Why is there no such quote regarding his alleged sighting of a stranger? Because it never happened.

As I have said previous there were many conflicts in witness testimony which were never clarified. Such conflicts in themselves do in my opinion not amount to red flags, because there was every opportunity for these to be clarified when identified, and clearly having been identified the court and the police would seem to have not regarded them as red flags.

These are red flags and although may have innocent explanations, are still de facto issues that need to be cleared up or explained away.

Comment

He was expressing regret that he didn’t see anyone in the court at that time, and that if he had seen someone, he might have noticed bloodstains on his person and been in a position to thwart his escape.

Here at least is a direct quote from Bowyer. Why is there no such quote regarding his alleged sighting of a stranger? Because it never happened.

All the best,
Ben

Indeed Ben
and in Bowyers official statement to authorities the only mention of seeing any kind of stranger was several days before the night of her murder.

This press story is probably a garbled account of that.

"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"
-Edgar Allan Poe

"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."
-Frederick G. Abberline

Comment

Hutchinson had nowhere else to go and nothing else to do. He had to be somewhere and probably thought his best chance of a bed for the night was with MJK. That's not stalking behaviour unless there is evidence that he was doing the same thing every night - which there isn't.

Mizen claimed that Lechmere & Paul had told him another constable needed him in Bucks Row. The constable concerned denied even seeing them, never mind speaking to them. No discrepancy - Mizen was either mistaken or lying about what was said.

Comment

What do they do, put a Wanted add in the papers for Mr George Hutchinson to come to the station?
It's not like we haven't been over that before.

Lawende had a business, the police knew where to find him.

If the police were keystone cops.If not this kind of witness,his importance,if his account is true, will be retained.This was the big lead.
Have him notify police if he moved,give him rewards.Have him walk around the district more to spot the man.Use him in the Sadler case.
The case closed in 1892.But it did not happen because his testimony was dropped,forcing them to use a witness/Lawende who doubt he
could identify the "suspect" again.

Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced, otherwise people run back to the hills,no towns).
M. Pacana

I agree Trevor. Also on the subject of Lechmere. Proponents of the Lechmere theory blither on about how Police procedure should make Lechmere a prime candidate and how because he found a body he needs to be cleared. However I've noted that you a former Policeman regard Lechmere as a terrible suspect. This is at odds with what proponents of the Lechmere theory are saying. I also regard Lechmere as a terrible suspect and can only conclude that proponents of the Lechmere Theory are full of bullshit.

Comment

and in Bowyers official statement to authorities the only mention of seeing any kind of stranger was several days before the night of her murder.

Is this the same story reported in the Western Mail of 12th November? In which case, it says the man Bowyer saw matched resembled the description given by the untrustworthy Matthew Packer:

"Harry Bowyer states that on Wednesday night he saw a man speaking to Kelly who resembled the description given by the fruiterer of the supposed Berner Street murderer."

Packer estimated the age of the man he allegedly saw at around 35, and he said that he looked like a clerk. Bowyer described a "rather smart" man in his late 20s, sporting white collar and cuffs and a black coat. It doesn't strike me that either was describing an Astrakhan-type figure, but a clerical worker.

Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

Comment

As an example, if a witness gives a first hand account to a newspaper in person and the paper prints that, it is a primary source. If that newspaper sells the same account to a second newspaper and that account when published differs from the original it becomes a secondary source, because that paper was not a direct party to the original account, and not present when it was given, and what is contained in that cannot be totally relied on.

Yes, in general I agree, but I'm not altogether sure about your secondary example.
If the original newspaper sold a story that was edited down by the end user that doesn't make it a secondary source, in my opinion.
However, if words are changed, or the story is paraphrased in whole or in part then certainly the story is now a secondary source.
Once interpretation by a third party enters the story, that makes it a secondary source.

One related issue maybe somewhat misleading. Sometimes the term 'secondary' is used to indicate that a story is not trustworthy.
That is misleading, a paraphrased account is not necessarily unreliable.
Any statement whether primary or secondary still requires to be judged on the facts it contains, not how it was recorded.

Bowyer's police statement to Abberline was taken down in third-hand, so we cannot be absolutely sure whether it contains paraphrase by Abberline, which means the source should not be viewed as 'primary'. Yet, few would argue that it can be deemed reliable.

Regards, Jon S.

Comment

Hutchinson had nowhere else to go and nothing else to do. He had to be somewhere and probably thought his best chance of a bed for the night was with MJK. That's not stalking behaviour unless there is evidence that he was doing the same thing every night - which there isn't.

Mizen claimed that Lechmere & Paul had told him another constable needed him in Bucks Row. The constable concerned denied even seeing them, never mind speaking to them. No discrepancy - Mizen was either mistaken or lying about what was said.

Hi bridewell
I agree. I think more than likely he was just looking for a place to crash. However, he followed mary around and then waited outside her place for almost an hour in the middle of the night on his own accord. Just happens on the night of her murder. Creepy or maybe bad luck? I dont know but to me its stalking behaviour, especially since theres no indication mary wanted anything to do with him, and basically blew him off so theres could be jeolousy in the mix too.

Re mizen. Probably mistaken, the other option lech lied. Its certainly not a fact mizen was lying or mistaken.

Comment

Bowyer's police statement to Abberline was taken down in third-hand, so we cannot be absolutely sure whether it contains paraphrase by Abberline, which means the source should not be viewed as 'primary'. Yet, few would argue that it can be deemed reliable.

Any witness statement from a civilian witness contains the witness's account, but in the statement taker's words. If it were otherwise Hutchinson's statement might have read something along the lines of "I saw Mary on the night she died. She was with a dodgy-looking bloke in a fur-trimmed coat". A witness statement is a primary source paraphrase notwithstanding.

"It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

Comment

He was expressing regret that he didn’t see anyone in the court at that time, and that if he had seen someone, he might have noticed bloodstains on his person and been in a position to thwart his escape.

Honestly Ben, I don't know what you are talking about.

This is more of the article - he saw the man in question, he just wasn't aware at the time that this man would be viewed as the killer.

"Bowyer vistited that spot as late-or, rather, as early-as three o'clock on the morning of the murder. This early visit to the water-tap is by no means an unfrequent thing, as Mr. Mccarthy's shop, which supplies the wants of a very poor and wretched locality, whose denziens are out at all hours, late and early, does not at times close until three o'clock in the morning,while occassionally it is open all night. Early on Friday morning Bowyer saw a man, whose description tallies with that of the supposed murderer. Bowyer has, he says, described this man to Inspector Abberline and Inspector Reid." Bowyer, who is known as "Indian Harry" has travelled a great deal, and formerly lived in India. He said to an Echo reporter this morning. "The murderer couldn't have come to a worse place (for escaping) than this court. There is only this narrow entrance, and If I had known he was there when I went to the water tap at three o'clock, I reckon he wouldn't have got off."

"if I had known he was there" - meaning if he had known the killer was "there", in this court...

Comment

Once interpretation by a third party enters the story, that makes it a secondary source.

That makes it a second-hand account. If any account - whether first, second or third hand - appeared in a contemporary newspaper for the first time, then it's a primary source as defined by historians. Call it a "second-hand account" by all means, but don't call it a secondary source, because that's a term which means something very specific when one is dealing with historical materials. A secondary source would be a book or newspaper article produced after the event which quotes or interprets one or more primary sources.

Comment

Indeed Ben
and in Bowyers official statement to authorities the only mention of seeing any kind of stranger was several days before the night of her murder.

This press story is probably a garbled account of that.

This you mean?

"Harry Bowyer states that on Wednesday night he saw a man speaking to Kelly who resembled the description given by the fruiterer of the supposed Berner Street murderer. He was, perhaps, 27 or 28 and had a dark moustache and very peculiar eyes. His appearance was rather smart and attention was drawn to him by showing very white cuffs and a rather long white collar, the ends of which came down in front over a black coat. He did not carry a bag."
Western Mail, 12 Nov. 1888.